I don’t understand why this matters. The families knowingly accepted the lower bid so The Onion could try and do some good with the brand. It seems like, at the point where it’s being auctioned off with all proceeds going to the families, InfoWars should effectively be theirs to do with as they please.
Read further. There are two judgements against Jones: one for ~$50M and one for ~$1B. In a normal bankruptcy resolution, the 8 families of the $1B judgement will get 95% of the proceeds, while the 2 families of $50M get 5%. “Sandy Hook families forgoing $750,000” means that those 8 families are effectively giving $750k of their millions to the 2 families, resulting in a more even distribution of compensation across the whole group.
The judge did not actually order a new auction, just left the next steps up to the trustee who oversaw the first auction. The article specifically points this out so I’m not sure if this means there wr other ways it could play out besides redoing the auction.
It’s not that simple. The judge rejected the bid because it included the Sandy Hook families forgoing $750,000.
I don’t understand why this matters. The families knowingly accepted the lower bid so The Onion could try and do some good with the brand. It seems like, at the point where it’s being auctioned off with all proceeds going to the families, InfoWars should effectively be theirs to do with as they please.
Money matters. Morals don’t.
Read further. There are two judgements against Jones: one for ~$50M and one for ~$1B. In a normal bankruptcy resolution, the 8 families of the $1B judgement will get 95% of the proceeds, while the 2 families of $50M get 5%. “Sandy Hook families forgoing $750,000” means that those 8 families are effectively giving $750k of their millions to the 2 families, resulting in a more even distribution of compensation across the whole group.
Well my assumption is that the next auction will be won by the highest bidder, so your point isn’t really contradictory.
The judge did not actually order a new auction, just left the next steps up to the trustee who oversaw the first auction. The article specifically points this out so I’m not sure if this means there wr other ways it could play out besides redoing the auction.